PDA

View Full Version : Voice of America v. Al Jazeera



George L. Singleton
04-07-2008, 11:29 AM
VAdmiral Norbert Ryan has kindly had the Military Officers Association of America do an article about me regarding my interest in seeing that portion of the 9/11 Commission Report more fully implemented to bring up in native dialects, 24/7 and use both in TV and radio format the Voice of America.

It is my opinion (at age 68 now, looking back) that any war today has to have a proactive progadanda arm which in the case of SW Asia and the Middle East is Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera, which at the moment is eating our lunch out of the UAE.

In Pakistan, out OF 166 million total population, around 46 million are illiterate. In Afghanistan out of a population of around 37 million, around 26.3 million are illiterate.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims, in the aggregate, in SW Asia and the Middle East being illiterate they depend 100% on radio and TV, often in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan these are battery operated.

We are badly ignoring the radio and TV broadcast mediums propaganda side of this war. Little ole ladies in tennis shoes are testifying in 2008 before House and Senate Appropriations Committees against using Voice of American in the War on Terrorism. Understand, since 1998 when the US Information Agency was abolished, VOA today is an integral part of the US Department of State.

Here is the OFFICER MAGAZINE April, 2008 Internet site to look at the direct article, which you can comment on via the MOAA feedback website if a MOAA Member, or by an e-mail letter to the editor of the OFFICER MAGAZINE if not yet (I want you to join us!) a MOAA Member.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/moaa/mo0408/

GENERAL PETRAEUS IS ON THE COVER OF THE APRIL 2008 OFFICER MAG.

Once you copy and paste onto your search site on your computer you will find the MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE website. The magazine cover is a photo of General Petraeus. Then at the top of your screen go to and click on Search and enter Singleton which will get you to page 28 for a national article about me. There is an on-line discussion website you may want to read and post to, as well, provided you are MOAA members to have posting rights. You can read postings in any event.

The Military Officers Association of America is one of the top 5 veterans organizations in the United States, as recognized by and advisory to both the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the US Department of Defense, and the U.S. State Department. The others of the top 5 veterans organizations nationally are the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Purple Heart Association, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The focus of this article as far as I am concerned is getting more Congressional funding for VOICE OF AMERICA radio and TV broadcasts in the native dialects into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, in particular, in their native dialects, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week vs. the lies daily being put out by Al Jazeera radio and TV daily.

Wartime success in all US history is practically accomplished by a very strong propaganda program.

VOICE OF AMERICA since 1998 is a part of the US Department of State. Some of you will recall the success of VOA under the late Edward R. Morrow when it was a part of the United States Information Agency before the 1998 merger into the State Department.

You can comment on the website at end of the magazine article if you want to give your opinion on uses of Voice of America (VOA) to better help fight the war on terrorism.

George Singleton
Hoover, Alabama

William F. Owen
04-07-2008, 12:30 PM
The focus of this article as far as I am concerned is getting more Congressional funding for VOICE OF AMERICA radio and TV broadcasts in the native dialects into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, in particular, in their native dialects, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week vs. the lies daily being put out by Al Jazeera radio and TV daily.


You may well be funding a completely futile exercise. The folks you are trying to influence are unlikely to be swayed by an alternative view point, however true or rational it might be.

A great many 3rd world folks have their own narrative that it is completely isolated from reality. Telling them another story just does not work unless it supports a belief system they have already brought into. basically, the illiterate, do not do "duality."

In fact my direct experience of Pakistan, Kuwait, Algeria, West Africa and a few other spots is that you basic non-secular thinker simply alters his reality to suit his story, regardless of facts. Facts are irrelevant. There is the story the majority want to hear, and then all else is lies. Mere words and images cannot do little.

George L. Singleton
04-07-2008, 01:15 PM
Thanks for your feedback. I assume your read the interview with me in OFFICER MAGAZINE to know I have been there, both in the military, later as an international banker, and then in 1991 "dust up."

Al Jazeera TV, in particular, is eating our lunch, using ex-BBC broadcasters in fact on air who speak Arabic.

But, I do agree with you that most of the grassroots people over there are chronic liars to our understanding, and yes, they do change the facts to suit their purposes, but those doing such are above average not illiterate bumpkins.

What today, and yesterday, works is direct source information. TV broadcasts by Voice of America will be most effective. The illiterate watcher identifies over time with the face, or talking head, on the screne, if that personality repeats on air over time.

Your views of boots on ground only are historically sound but only in the winning sense when accompanied, based on history, not your or my opinion,s by effective propaganda program.

Thanks for your input,
George Singleton

tequila
04-07-2008, 02:26 PM
You may well be funding a completely futile exercise. The folks you are trying to influence are unlikely to be swayed by an alternative view point, however true or rational it might be.

A great many 3rd world folks have their own narrative that it is completely isolated from reality. Telling them another story just does not work unless it supports a belief system they have already brought into. basically, the illiterate, do not do "duality."

This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Rex Brynen
04-07-2008, 05:18 PM
This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

Ken White
04-07-2008, 05:27 PM
and no one pays much attention to me either...:(

You said:
Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.I'd suggest that the pathetic US Media is so very bad that they deserve little attention being paid them -- and that long pre-dates al-Hirra / al-Sawa. It will also unfortunately be true long after no one recalls those two failed efforts

Our numerous errors in the ME over the last 60 years have come home to roost. Lick upon us. The fascinating thing to me is that the Arabists in academia and the government who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today.

Tom Odom
04-07-2008, 06:17 PM
Our numerous errors in the ME over the last 60 years have come home to roost. Lick upon us. The fascinating thing to me is that the Arabists in academia and the government who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today.

Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
Tom

William F. Owen
04-07-2008, 06:56 PM
This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Agreed but the target audience we are discussing are the ones in the developing world.

If you want a parallel, then I see no clear blue water between the bigotry and racism present in Hezbollah, than in the Klu-Klux-Klan. Same sides of the same coin.

Rex Brynen
04-07-2008, 07:02 PM
Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

I agree with Tom, and would go a step further: until recently, it was not unusual for the policy and academic community to do their things in almost complete isolation from each other. Folks in the IC box rarely got out of that box to talk to academic experts. People in State and DoD were too busy on daily issues to have the time or inclination to engage scholars working on the region.

The problem was equally severe on the academic side. In the US ME Studies community, distaste for US policy was so great that many scholars were pleased not to be engaged with policy makers. A great many scholars, moreover, have no real sense of how the policy process operates, or how to engage/influence it. Certainly the reward system in university settings places little value in doing so.

Regarding ME issues, this has changed substantially since 9/11, and the interaction is much more extensive. It is still not what it could be (and it will be interesting to see whether the 2008 Middle East Studies Association annual conference, which will be in DC in November, will involve some policy-academic dialogue, or whether it will continue to be almost entirely academics talking to themselves).

Moreover, whether the two sides really know what they can (and can't) get from each other, and how best to do so, is still a bit of an open question. It requires real strategizing to make it work. Also open for question is, as Tom notes, the actual influence of all this on policy.

Ken White
04-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?I meant those who 'study' Arab culture and the region and who as a result become become at least mildly enamored of the culture and people and who then frequently, in my observation, have a tendency to favor Arab centric policies. They also in my observation do not truly understand the subtlety of Arab political maneuvering and do not seem to understand that what is said in English and what is said in Arabic -- and in private -- are frequently three quite different things. I can cite DS/DS and the 'diplomatic' efforts in the year or two before it, to include listening to what Saddam and Mubarak said as opposed to watching what he did as but one example. Syria's move into Lebanon, encouraged by us, is an earlier one. I won't even go into the total misreading of Arafat.

Long way of saying one who sympathizes, I guess -- though I am not one who does not...
Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?You're kidding, right? They aren't in charge of policy -- but the folks who are were educated in those schools and under those people.
As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
TomWe can disagree on much of that. The policy toward the Saudis has been very consistent from FDR forward under Admins from both parties; the Republicans just have more time on station.

I wasn't talking about changing any policies; what I said was the Arabists ""who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today"" (emphasis added / kw). Many but certainly not all of those Arabists have consistently misinterpreted signals from the ME and operated in some cases under the delusion that the Arabs are like us -- or want to be -- and that they think pretty much like we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Goes back to the 'rational actor' argument; the Arabs are quite rational actors, more so than we are in many cases and they're certainly generally more moral and honest -- but the rationality is quite different and honesty is very differently perceived in the two cultures. Neither is wrong, they're just different.

That's all I said.

I spent enough time in and did enough travel around the ME almost 40 years ago to know we were roundly despised even then, a borderline laughing stock because of out national naivete and that our media and culture were anathema to many. I was also told by a great many people in several nations that the quality of thought emanating from the US with respect to the ME was dangerously wrong and excessively western-centric. My belief is that any changes in that over the last 40 years have not been for the better. If that is true, then I suggest it sort of makes my case; the very people who should have contributed to keeping us out these pickles sort of inadvertently and with the best of intentions, helped put us in the jar.

Tom Odom
04-07-2008, 07:36 PM
spent enough time in and did enough travel around the ME almost 40 years ago to know we were roundly despised even then, a borderline laughing stock because of out national naivete and that our media and culture were anathema to many. I was also told by a great many people in several nations that the quality of thought emanating from the US with respect to the ME was dangerously wrong and excessively western-centric. My belief is that any changes in that over the last 40 years have not been for the better. If that is true, then I suggest it sort of makes my case; the very people who should have contributed to keeping us out these pickles sort of inadvertently and with the best of intentions, helped put us in the jar.

Ken

I would agree that many have the wrong ideas about the Middle East and some of them have been associated with various institutions and branches of the government.

I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.

Tom

Ron Humphrey
04-07-2008, 07:41 PM
Ken

I would agree that many have the wrong ideas about the Middle East and some of them have been associated with various institutions and branches of the government.

I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.

Tom

I consider myself an equal opportunity sympathizer.
I feel bad for anyone who isn't me :wry:

Ken White
04-07-2008, 07:55 PM
I would not agree that anyone who studies the region becomes what you call an Arabist as in "Arab" sympathizer. Knowledge does not necessarily equate to sympathy.Not 'anyone' -- just some. Thus my caveats in the original in the sub thread that I emphasized above.

My concern is not with those who truly understand the region -- but with those who purport to to do so but in actuality do not and thus, (as I also said) inadvertently give bad advice. They were the ones I targeted.

Ken White
04-07-2008, 08:14 PM
I agree with Tom, and would go a step further: until recently, it was not unusual for the policy and academic community to do their things in almost complete isolation from each other. Folks in the IC box rarely got out of that box to talk to academic experts. People in State and DoD were too busy on daily issues to have the time or inclination to engage scholars working on the region.were educated by those in the academic community. There were and are people in both communities that truly understand the ME and will look under the table to determine what's going on -- my observation has been that too many in both do not do so.
The problem was equally severe on the academic side. In the US ME Studies community, distaste for US policy was so great that many scholars were pleased not to be engaged with policy makers.Also true and frankly, I'm not sure who that is an indictment of. Perhaps no one. Regardless, it is a significant problem but I also suggest that some nominal academic experts that make public statements fail to convince me that they really understand the subtleties of ME political machinations. Or the depth of that distaste I mentioned...

Will also ackowledge the politeness that pervades the ME and the zahir / batin phenomenon can be confusing... :wry:

I agree with most of the rest of your comment.
...Also open for question is, as Tom notes, the actual influence of all this on policy.True but I submit the evidence in the public domain is that the actual influence of those to whom I apply the tag in the Intel and Foreign Policy communities while not totally pervasive is indicative of enough influence -- and enough misreading no matter how well intentioned -- to have caused more than one of our many miscues in the region.

That said, it an exceedingly difficult cultural divide to transcend and I fully understand that. That applies to both the Western - ME divide and the Academy - Policy divide... :D

John T. Fishel
04-07-2008, 08:54 PM
so much credit - or blame.:o I don't know how many times my former students have disappointed me by doing things that I thought I had showed them had backfired in the past. On the other hand, I've talked with other former students - who did things things that followed logically from my courses - only to find that they had other reasons of their own for doing them!

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White
04-07-2008, 09:45 PM
People are seeing an attack where none was intended -- or made.

Your point is acknowledged -- more than and I can sure empathize; seen the same thing... :(

It is just my perception that in the realm of ME studies and expertise in the west in general and in the US in particular, there happen to be a surprising number of practitioners who miss many of the undercurrents -- and I also have said that in that area of the world, that is very easy to understand. I am certainly no expert and don't claim to be. However, I have learned that in that part of the world little is as it seems and there are almost always hidden motives and to us westerners, hidden agendas. One 'interprets' the words and actions from there with considerable caution -- and ideally, very, very slowly. Unless one is overfilled with certitude or has an agenda, that is...

I think it's a given that one can lead a student to water but cannot make him drink. There are others that will find the water on their own; still more that can be lead and will drink. Experts in any realm can and do err.

If that realm entails the true understanding and accurate interpretation of a vastly different culture then the number of truly knowledgeable experts in the field from a given sized pool will be far smaller than will that of truly knowledgeable experts in the field from a similar sized pool of say, civil engineers. Engineering is essentially a science with firm rules.

Interpreting the intent of humans, particularly humans who do not think like you do, is like warfare, it isn't a science -- it's an art. All the education in the world will not help those who aren't artists.

Norfolk
04-07-2008, 09:48 PM
I consider myself an equal opportunity sympathizer.
I feel bad for anyone who isn't me :wry:

Then cry a river for me Ron.;)

Fundamentally, if the mere appearance of Western media or IO efforts inspires more or less general loathing amongst the ME "audience", then any but the most minimal IO efforts on our part are almost certainly a waste of time. Instead, we have to be able to take quiet advantage of what domestic ME media or "IO" efforts by reformers and the like succeed against our more intractable opponents in the region.

We can't make them "like" us (in both senses of "like") no matter what we do; we can, at best, make ourselves useful to them - and we must only make ourselves so when it is useful to us, too. Given the circumstances, when it comes to Western and especially US IO directed towards the ME, less is more.

George L. Singleton
04-08-2008, 01:54 AM
Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

While I respect your different opinion, we need our own Voice of America TV and radio broadcasts into Afghanistan and Paksitan, now, not some muddle of untrusthworthy Middle East Arab broadcasts.

Al Jazeera is owned and funded by a UAE Shiek, hardly a "democratic" fellow.
Since 1995, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has ruled Qatar, seizing control of the country from his father Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani while the latter vacationed in Switzerland. Qatar ranks as the ninth richest country in the world per capita.

Qatar served as the headquarters and one of the main launching sites of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is noted to be objective in disagreeing with you.

In 2005, a suicide-bombing killed a British teacher at the Doha Players Theatre, shocking a country that had not previously experienced few acts of terrorism.

Afghanistan and the NWFP area of Paksitan, where I served for two years both speak Pashto. The rest of Pakistan depending on the Province involved speak: Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki, and Balochi.

The key reason we disagree here is that VOA must be our propaganda arm for the next 100 years in the context of the long term ideological war with radical Islam. VOA is an within the US State Department, our official propaganda organ, VOA, which is why we cannot use local Arab media in lieu of VOA. In this war on terrorism we are mainly fighting an ideological war, extremist, terrorist, to my understanding heretical Islamic jiihadists, but many other Muslims without the balance of VOA in their native dialects are being brought into the terrorist thinking Muslim camp thanks in part to the pro-radical Islam Al Jazeera interviews, coverage, and release of terrorists messages to the world using Al Jazeera as their communications medium.

Too, please note that Paks, Afghans, and Iranians, in the main, are not Arabs and few speak Arabic. Al Jazeera is just now expanding their pro-terrorist broadcasts, TV and radio, into Pakistani dialects and the in common Afghan-NWFP Pashto dialect. We must compete to deal in the long term, 100 years horizon, if not longer, in this religiously based ideological debate.

Here are some illiteracy data on non-Arabic speaking poorest of the poor Muslims of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Quote: Of 166 million Pakistanis, 46 million are illiterate and depend solely on TV or radio for news, which Al Jazeera, the terrorist network out of the UAE currently provides to them.

Out of a total Afghan population of 37 million, 26.3 million are illiterate. They, too depend on Al Jazeera for news.

Voice of America needs to get correct dialect speaking on 24/7 TV and radio programming into Pakistan and Afghanistan, yesterday.

Here is a bit of the 9/11 Commission Report which due to it's July, 2004 issue date and focus misses the point of non-Arabic speaking hot spots which are belatedly, now, to be fair, identified as Pakistan and Afghanistan, all over again.

PARTIAL QUOTE FROM JULY 2004 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney

And here are some facts about Al Jazeera which on balance do not agree with your postive view that Al Jazeera "isn't all bad." It is against us, against the War on Terrorism, and is the "Voice" of al Qaida and the Taliban to the rest of the world, which I for one don't find either friendly or democratic.

Al Jazeera is a television network headquartered in Doha, Qatar, UAE. The UAE and Pakistan prior to 9/11 were the only two nations in the world to recognize the Taliban governed, al Qaida infested old Afghanistan, lets be clear on these facts.

Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel with the same name, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages, and in several regions of the world.

The original Al Jazeera channel's willingness to broadcast dissenting views, including on call-in shows, created controversies in Persian Gulf States. The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it broadcast video statements by Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.

History

The original Al Jazeera channel was started in 1996 with a US$150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa.

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-co-owned Arabic language TV station, faced with censorship demands by the Saudi Arabian government, shut down after two years of operation. Many former BBC World Service staff members joined Al Jazeera, which at the time was not yet on air. The channel began broadcasting in late 1996.

Al Jazeera's availability (via satellite) throughout the Middle East changed the television landscape of the region. Prior to the arrival of Al Jazeera, many Middle Eastern citizens were unable to watch TV channels other than state-censored national TV stations. Al Jazeera introduced a level of freedom of speech on TV that was previously unheard of in many of these countries. Al Jazeera presented controversial views regarding the governments of many Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar; it also presented controversial views about Syria's relationship with Lebanon, and the Egyptian judiciary. Critics accused Al Jazeera of sensationalism in order to increase its audience share.

It wasn't until late 2001 that Al Jazeera achieved worldwide recognition, when it broadcast video statements by al-Qaeda leaders. The original Al Jazeera and today's Al Jazeera are quite different. Today Al Jazeera is clearly pro-terrorist in terms of public relations and communcations as the enabler of recordings, video tapings, and such of key al Qaida terrorists used to broadcast to and threaten the rest of the non-radical Muslim and all other faith systems world.

Funding

Further to the initial US$ 150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera had aimed to become self-sufficient through advertising by 2001, but when this failed to occur, the Emir agreed to continue subsidizing it on a year-by-year basis (US$30 million in 2004,according to Arnaud de Borchgrave). Other major sources of income include advertising, cable subscription fees, broadcasting deals with other companies, and sale of footage. In 2000, advertising accounted for 40% of the station's revenue.

Remember the Emir is a potentate for life, hardly a democratic form of government for Qatar.

Thanks for you views and for allowing me mine. Voice of America helped win the Cold War and we need a greatly expanded, better funded VOA in all the right linguistic dialects not in just the short run but for the next 100 years if not longer in our long term ideological war against terroristm and radical Islam.

George L. Singleton
04-08-2008, 02:10 PM
A former Marine who is now a TV news journalist for one of our major TV stations in the Greater Birmingham, Alabama market did two interviews yesterday in support of increased in proper native dialects and better funded Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera TV and radio broadcasting as per the 9/11 Commission report, which reads in part from July, 2004:

Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney

Hope this background info is helpful.

Here is my feeble attempt to attach the 4/7/08 CBS-42 news clip, interview with Congressman Spencer Bachus, R-AL and me as the focus of the MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE article in April, 2008 issue regarding Voice of America revival and increased funding/proper linguists:

http://www.cbs42.com/news/local/17377219.html

Then on this CBS42 local TV news sight go to box on right hand side of web page and click on "A war of words" to see the interviews regarding Voice of America's critical propaganda role as recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report with interviews with Colonel George Singleton (me) and US Congressman Spencer Bachus, R-AL who has made improved use and funding of VOA a plank in his re-election to Congress platform as of 4/7/08.

MountainRunner
04-09-2008, 05:32 AM
Earlier this evening I put up a post (http://mountainrunner.us/2008/04/when_history_repeats_troubles.html)that's relevant to the discussion here. I won't subject you to my blog, the entirety of the post is below.

Sixty-two years ago, Congress was so troubled by the operations of the Voice of America that it slashed the appropriation for the State Department's Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs, known as OIC, in half. At the time, not only were broadcasts of dubious quality hitting the airwaves (including many from private media contractors), but to a lack of accountability of the personnel and content producers. Congress was not questioning the act or need to propagandize (http://mountainrunner.us/2008/03/talking_about_the_principles_s.html), it was responding to the extremely poor quality and haphazard nature of U.S. efforts in light of communist inroads into Western public opinion (http://mountainrunner.us/2007/08/targeting_public_opinion_is_no.html).

Some Congressional Republicans feared a peacetime VOA would be bias towards a Democratic Administration. Others thought the "whispers" from State in the war of contemporary war of ideas at the beginning of the Cold War were symptomatic of a larger problem of communist sympathizers within State, a problem made worse by a rash of spy scandals. America's information systems were ill and the cure was the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, formally known as Public Law 402: The United States Information and Educations Exchange Act of 1948.

In 2008, there is again trouble at VOA (http://mountainrunner.us/2007/12/monitoring_what_you_say.html). Four days ago, Senator Tom Coburn, MD, sent a five-page letter to Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, detailing significant issues with the content of VOA's Farsi broadcasts. The Senator is troubled by not just the VOA but its oversight organization, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His three major concerns are:

A lack of transparency in both VOA and BBG
A lack of accountability in both VOA and BBG
Absence of guidance and coordination from Key Policy-Making Agencies (State, Defense, Homeland Security, National Security Council, etc)The letter is factual and puts forward a strong case for significant change at VOA and at the BBG. Many of the complaints are, ironically, rooted in modern interpretations of Smith-Mundt. The lack of transparency, for example, can be traced to amendments to the Act in 1972 and 1985.

For example, the Senator highlights the VOA's "terrorists are freedom fighters" policy posted on VOA's blog (http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/terrorist-vs-rebel-who-decides-and-why.html) (Did you know VOA has a blog? and why is it hosted by Google?). The discussion of the use of the "t-word" is, well, interesting. See for yourself (http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/terrorist-vs-rebel-who-decides-and-why.html).

However, while I agree with the Senator's criticism of VOA, the cure from the doctor from Kentucky is not holding up Jim Glassman's nomination. The position of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (and, by the way, Public Affairs) should not be empty any longer.

Instead, I urge the good Senator to instead convince his House colleagues (I understand from discussions last year that his colleagues in the Senate are already open to the idea) to revisit Smith-Mundt, especially the distorted modern perception that pervades not just our civilian information agencies but our military services as well. This Act, the fix for similar complaints nearly exactly sixty years ago, is the root of most of his complaints. Any promises the Senator extracts from the White House to satisfy his valid concerns laid out in his letter will be met, under current conditions, by artificial and false firewalls of modern interpretations of Smith-Mundt.

JJackson
04-09-2008, 11:03 AM
I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.

William F. Owen
04-09-2008, 01:42 PM
I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output?

The inability to speak or read Arabic is pretty much the issue. I have a lot of Arabic literate friends (one of whom is an Arab), and my father-in-law speaks it to a fair degree.

Simple test: Get someone who can read Arabic well, to pick up a few local newspapers in any Arab city and search for the word Jew (Jehudi). Then read how Jews are portrayed. Out of X number of stories, how many are positive? Then find the English language translation of the same piece. If you can, then you've done better than me over the past 30 years.

You could type "anti-semitism" and "Arab media" into google, but you would get mostly stuff from Jewish/Israeli organisations, and as some Arab Media will tell you, these people cannot be trusted - because they are Jews.

If you live in the UK, you can go to any of the big Jewish communities in London, Leeds, or Manchester, and they can probably point you at the same stuff.

Rex Brynen
04-09-2008, 03:44 PM
Which satellite TV station do you watch most?


54.2% al-Jazeera
18.3% al-Aqsa (Hamas)
11.2% Palestine TV (Fateh/PA)
6.1% al-Arabiyya
3.6% al-Manar (Hizbullah)
0.3% al-Hurra (US)

.. which reinforces my earlier point about the market dominance of al-Jazeera, and the complete failure of US-branded IO (al-Hurra) in the Arab world--which I don't think VoA can do much better.

The data doesn't reflect the extent to which Israeli TV is also watched, since it asks about DBS TV only.

Oh, and note that over half the population has a news and current affairs channel as its most-watched TV. If only that were true in the west...

Data from the ever-excellent Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research (http://www.pcpsr.org/) (March 2008 survey).

Ken White
04-09-2008, 06:11 PM
...
Oh, and note that over half the population has a news and current affairs channel as its most-watched TV. If only that were true in the west...As long as most channels spend so very much more time on the 'celebrity' culture and other trivia (not to mention trying to leverage local inanities and aberrations to national prominence) than on actual news, I see little chance for improvement. Sad.

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 02:16 AM
I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.

I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 02:25 AM
Which satellite TV station do you watch most?


54.2% al-Jazeera
18.3% al-Aqsa (Hamas)
11.2% Palestine TV (Fateh/PA)
6.1% al-Arabiyya
3.6% al-Manar (Hizbullah)
0.3% al-Hurra (US)

.. which reinforces my earlier point about the market dominance of al-Jazeera, and the complete failure of US-branded IO (al-Hurra) in the Arab world--which I don't think VoA can do much better.

The data doesn't reflect the extent to which Israeli TV is also watched, since it asks about DBS TV only.

Oh, and note that over half the population has a news and current affairs channel as its most-watched TV. If only that were true in the west...

Data from the ever-excellent Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research (http://www.pcpsr.org/) (March 2008 survey).

Thanks for your stats. Per the 9/11 Commission Report as includes and involves Voice of America they "will" do better when better funded and hire more linguistics. I am helping refer a US based native of NWFP, over here 20 years now, who is fluent in his native Pashto (works in both Pakistan NWFP and Afghanistan), as a small personal effort. I still believe we need to help find fixes instead of arm chair complaining that so and so doesn't do the best or the right job. Hope you all agree, as many of you have contacts who speak more or other than Arabic, which is not the need of the hour when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan/NWFP/FATA.

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 03:09 AM
I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.


1. Thank you note from a Marine lst Lt. Platoon Leader in Afghanistan about Voice of America, etc. His Dad and I grew up together in TN and he was a classmate with one of my three daughters at Vanderbilt. This Marine and his platoon had just finished a tour in Iraq were on ship enroute to USA and ship was turned around and they were taken back to be airlifted into Afghanistan, a new tour, with no home leave. Good spirits and dedicated young Marines! George Singleton

Colonel SIngleton,

Thank you so much for your letter and kind words and for including me on your emails. I read your article in 'Military Officer' and am extremely thankful for your work overseas through writing and media. I agree with you that we must convince all peoples around the world what we are here to do - not to conquer, but to rid the world of dangerous terrorists who use intimidation and exploitation as their means of spreading their cause. I am hoping and praying that they will catch on.

I hope all is well with you and your family in Alabama. Where in Alabama do you live? My little sister lives in Birmingham (attending UAB graduate school) and I have numerous friends living throughout the state. All is well out here in Afghanistan. We just got our first rain today. Again, thank you and God bless.

Semper Fidelis,

2. This is response from PhD director of a major Pakistani university think tank in Lahore, Paksitan to Voice of America article I copied to him:

Thank you!

---=

Khalil Ahmad

3. From a friend who works out of Dubai, a video clip of interest:

I think this is the English version

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

4. From a friend now serving inside Afghanistan who is here from Bham...Spencer Bachus is our local US Congressman (Republican). He is referring to the VOA clip by CBS42 TV newman here in Bham of Monday which interviewed both me and Congressman Bachus about the article I am in pushing for VOA expanded funding, more, varied linguists, etc. Our Congressional delegation here in Alabama is lining up behind it 100%, to remind, in part because it is in the 9/11 Commission Report Recommendations, and they bipartisanly then and today say it is long ago overdue and needed.
George,
I had no problems opening it. Excellent tv news piece. Good luck to you and Spencer in trying to fund this critical weapon in the “War on Terror”.

Jack



5. In response to reading the MOAA OFFICER MAG April 2008 article which I focused on Voice of America here is my friend, the retired Chief of Staff and Chief of all Navy SEALS response in part (named edited, but not rank):

Way to go George!!!, But the article doesn't do your letter writing campaign justice.... Great PHOTO though, just as I pictured you !! Thanx for your continued service...
Keep Charging ! XXXXX , Rear Admiral, US NAVY (Ret)

6. From another friend now serving in Afghanistan on Voice of America MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE article focus on VOA, I have omitted his name to protect him, too.

George,

Good article. I have read with interest your letters to the Peshawar FRONTIER POST and agree that we need to do a much better job in the propaganda war that we really are losing over here. The Afghans that I work with appear to truly appreciate the work that we have jointly accomplished over here. However, the senior leadership of both the Afghan Army and the Afghan Police are for the most part corrupt and incompetent. Hopefully, the next generation will break the cycle of ignorance and intolerance that pervades this country, but I have my doubts.

_______________________



I am tired, and need to hit the sack, was on the road all day. But, let me summarize by saying I hear all the time from both those who know me and those who have only read what I write or what others have written about me.

One regular correspondent to me since 9/11, saw my letters in Peshawar FRONTIER POST and Karachi DAWN as I started my singular propaganda campaign, is the European Treasurer for the JKLF/UK. That is the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, which is peaceful, rather uniquely. He is ethnically I think a Pakhtun himself, but born in UK. His Dad was born in Kashmir.

The range and variety of people I hear from are from Muslim academia, business, military, you name it, out of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Russia (yes, Russia), Iran, UAE, and from Europe as well as overseas Muslims here in the US and Canada. I am very weary from the free work I do workload that has built up since 9/11 and want VOA to hire the right linguists, and do their job of the best anti-terrorist propaganda program in the world.

For those who say what would or will VOA talk about, go read on the Internet what VOA talked to the Communists about from 1945 until the Soviet Union and old East European Communist nations collapse. Themes are going to be similar, but VOA will have to delve into religious ideology to be effective.

My life has been threatened numerous times from the NWFP "zone" where I am the only non-Muslim writer on Hujra Online, which part of the Khyber Watch.com website. Only mention this cause the truth, I use facts and data that can be verified on/from the Internet, angers the enemy who are into all our sites, likely including this one, Small Wars Journal. But I hope SWJ is enemy free, but you never know today.

Rex Brynen
04-10-2008, 03:11 AM
I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

I know that al-Jazeera announced an Urdu language network in conjunction with ARY, but I didn't know that it was broadcasting yet (certainly, the website (http://www.aljazeeraurdu.tv/) is still only under construction). I'm not aware that it is (or will be) broadcasting other than in Urdu, nor on radio--do you have sources for this?

Finally, as I noted before, the main Arabic al-Jazeera network can hardly be described as the "mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida." For its part, ARY also runs (in additional to its news and entertainment networks) the Pakistani versions of HBO and Nickelodeon, plus a music video and home shopping channel. Do you have any concrete data showing that the Urdu-language version will somehow be so dramatically different from the products that these networks already broadcast?

JJackson
04-10-2008, 11:50 AM
I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

George. Although I have only seen Al Jazeera’s English output from their TV and web sites I have not found it a mouth piece for anybody and not dissimilar to VoA or the BBC. It is not rabidly American, as Fox can be, but is not pro terrorist or pro AQ. So my question remains is there evidence that Al Jazeera’s output in other languages is diametrically opposed to their English output if not why waste money trying to counter them as their output is basically the same as VoA’s.


Contrast & Compare
To see if my gut feelings were correct I opened todays BBC front page to pick something I thought they would both carry and would show up bias. This turned out to be a bit more of a problem than I thought as I started with the “Afghan suicide attack kills eight” only to find VoA had not got it yet (evidence they need a bit more funding?), I then tried reports of al-Masri’s death but Al Jazeera had not covered it so I settled for “Gaza gunmen attack border depot” (Anything to do with Israel should be good to show up bias with the US/Israel and the Arab Nations forming the extremes of a very polarised spectrum of views).
Links to full articles “Palestinian Gunmen Kill Two Israelis in Cross-Border Attack (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-09-voa48.cfm)” (VoA), “Palestinians in cross-border raid (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/417089E7-6D8F-480F-9B03-16E9B4A057C4.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b417089E7-6D8F-480F-9B03-16E9B4A057C4%7d)” (Al Jazeera) & “http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7338055.stm” (BBC). All covered the basic facts that 4 Palestinians attacked a boarder crossing and there was an exchange of fire in which two were killed and two Israeli civilians also died, they also report the death of additional Palestinians in a car. It is quite enlightening to read the three side by side as each one has a different take. VoA alone introduces speculation from an Israeli General to suggest the attack may have been against a civilian target and describes the car as a getaway car. Al Jazeera opens with Israel’s shelling of Gaza city in response to the attack and the civilian casualties; it also plays up the Israel laying the blame on Hamas for not controlling the attack – which seems to have been by Islamic Jihad - and "there are reports of a state of emergency being declared along the Gaza border" not mentioned by the others.
The BBC decouple the helicopter strike on the car (getaway car) from the attack “Later, Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle in Gaza City which the military said had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants had taken part in the attack.” They also covered Islamic Jihad’s statement that the attack was to capture Israel soldiers and breaking the Israel blockade of the Gaza strip and Israel’s assertion “Israeli officials from the army and the government say the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis.”

Putting all three together it appears four Islamic Jihad fighters attacked Nahal Oz crossing with a view to capturing Israeli soldiers using light arms, in the process they killed two Israel civilians, who worked at the crossings fuel depot. Israeli returned fire with a tank killing two and causing the others to flee. Israel then used artillery and a missile from a helicopter to attack those it felt responsible. Much beyond that seems to be speculation and not even this much is certain.

A P.S.
Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr09/0,4670,IsraelPalestinians,00.html) also covered this but, unlike the others, used an AP reporter rather than in house. The piece linked Islamic Jihad to Iran, described the Israel civilian dead as riddled with bullets and had an interesting take on Hamas winning the elections in Gaza "But tensions have been increasing in Gaza, whose 1.4 million people have been confined to the territory since Hamas wrested control last June from security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas." but all in all a reasonable piece.

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 12:31 PM
I know that al-Jazeera announced an Urdu language network in conjunction with ARY, but I didn't know that it was broadcasting yet (certainly, the website (http://www.aljazeeraurdu.tv/) is still only under construction). I'm not aware that it is (or will be) broadcasting other than in Urdu, nor on radio--do you have sources for this?

Finally, as I noted before, the main Arabic al-Jazeera network can hardly be described as the "mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida." For its part, ARY also runs (in additional to its news and entertainment networks) the Pakistani versions of HBO and Nickelodeon, plus a music video and home shopping channel. Do you have any concrete data showing that the Urdu-language version will somehow be so dramatically different from the products that these networks already broadcast?

Thank you very much for your sound, logical, and probing questions. These and related points are in discussion currently before the Senate and House Appropriations Committees.

And as I said before I simply factually in view of world news coverage Al Jazeera uniquely has given to al Qaida starting immediately after 9/11 and in view of the funding shiek behind al Jazeera's relationships with the old Taliban Government of Afghanistan, the laundering of money you can reserach on the Internet for the terrorists through his UAE banks, etc, I do not agree with you nor does the 9/11 Commission when it comes to views for and against Al Jazeera. But, to each his own view. I'm supporting our troops by pushing for the 9/11 Commission Report better funding and more specific non-Arabic linguists.

It is important to stay focused on two things re need for Pashto, Urdu, etc. versions of VOA and enhanced programming to deal with terrorists kidnapping of moderate Islam in part via repeated propaganda on Al Jazeera: Of 166 million total Pakistan population about 46 million are illiterate, and many of these 46 million are in the NWFP, speak Pashto, are raw illiterate gun toting tribesmen who depend soley on TV and radio news, repeat news, broadcasts.

In Afghanistan out of an estimated by the CIA Fact Book on line (Internet) out of 37 million total population as many as 26.3 million are illiterate. Again these illiterates depend on TV and radio for all their news and other information.

Voice of America, right now, today, has an unmet need to support our boys and girls in the field there by broadcasing our views, facts, and news of evens there as well as world news as we see it. Especially important is getting Pashto speakers on the air to read peaceful admonitions from the Quran to undermine the mad mullahs and the dogma being pushed on air now by Al Qaida and the Taliban, some of which terrorist broadcasts are currently small FM transmitters being episodically set up in the mountains by the Taliban and al Qaida. I must admit I am baflled with an ancient, short history in TV and radio myself, as memory says AM waves bounce and work best for hilly terrain whereas FM waves are more straight line broadcast friendly.

I get my info on what Al Jazeera is doing, otherwise, from reading the on line Peshawar FRONTIER POST, the Karachi DAWN, but also from interchanges on the websie Hujra Online, which is a part of the KhyberWatch.com Pakhtun webiste. I also get info from the head of a major Pakistani university think tank who is refreshingly open minded and will print my articles, which are source deocumented, against the terrorist and their sympathetic friends who write in the same Pak think tank site, published mainly on the Internet to be clear. Also, I get a growing number of direct, personal e-mails from Muslims overseas who are of the more educated variety who wish to find a moderate path away from the terrorists and terrorism. This I can't reference to you as some of these folks, especially in the NWFP of Pakistan are among the minorities, Shias there who are be murdered indiscriminately by the Sunni Taliban and al Qaida inside Pakistan today. The do not want their info given out but of course I put that info into the Homeland Security pipleline regularly, via an anti-terrorism team here, a study group at West Point, and other special contacts that don't create "public awareness" of who these people are.

The Peshawar FRONTIER POST has no topical archive, it only as a by date for entire issues archieve. It used to have a topical log after 9/11 but received so many threats and Islamic Sharia Court lawsuits, as well as under Pakistani Government law(s) law suits that the topical and by writers name index was abolished, to stop false charges being made referncing articles and writers the terrorists didn't like or want printed, etc.

DAWN in Karachi however still has a proper archieve you can do some research on.

Trip yesterday to University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and Marion Military Institute in Marion, Alabama, showed I need new disk brakes on my Impala and I am headed out early, now, to the auto mechanic's shop.

Al Jazeera has big bucks, is anti-US and West in general, and very much the channel which gets al Qaida's propaganda to the fore ever since 9/11. Do you like Al Jazeera doing children's TV programming promoting being a "good terrorist" boy and girl, blowing up in suicide martydome the infidel Christians? Come now. This is happening now in the Middle East as a starter.

We, via VOA, have to be proactive and look ahead.

William F. Owen
04-10-2008, 01:01 PM
Putting all three together it appears four Islamic Jihad fighters attacked Nahal Oz crossing with a view to capturing Israeli soldiers using light arms, in the process they killed two Israel civilians, who worked at the crossings fuel depot. Israeli returned fire with a tank killing two and causing the others to flee. Israel then used artillery and a missile from a helicopter to attack those it felt responsible. Much beyond that seems to be speculation and not even this much is certain.

Who put this together? My take, is that a Hamas sanctioned/approved via lack of action, terrorist operation, aimed at killing civilians, to close down the Nahal Oz fuel depot, resulted in 2 civilians dead, and the IDF then went after and got the others responsible.

Hamas are terrorists, in the same way the IRA were/are, or Timothy McVeigh, was, or the Klu Klux Klan is. The more they can increase the suffering of those in the Gaza, the better they can promote their perceived legitimacy.

JJackson
04-10-2008, 06:08 PM
Who put this together? My take, is that a Hamas sanctioned/approved via lack of action, terrorist operation, aimed at killing civilians, to close down the Nahal Oz fuel depot, resulted in 2 civilians dead, and the IDF then went after and got the others responsible.

Hamas are terrorists, in the same way the IRA were/are, or Timothy McVeigh, was, or the Klu Klux Klan is. The more they can increase the suffering of those in the Gaza, the better they can promote their perceived legitimacy.

William in answer to your question: I put this together based on the accounts referenced. I am not sure how your take got Hamas sanctioning or approving anything as one article explicitly said they had no prior knowledge and two others quoted Hamas describing the action after the event as a "heroic and courageous" act. None of the accounts suggested it was anyone’s intention to close the fuel depot although Al Jazeera quoted the Israeli prime minister’s spokesman as saying "The fact that Hamas would deliberately target the major crossing point for the import of fuel into the Gaza Strip in order to kill people and close down the terminal is a clear indication that Hamas has no concern whatsoever for the people of Gaza" which is unsurprising given the source but at odds with other Israeli army comments and those of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
As to who are, and are not terrorist, you and I have been around this before and are not likely to change each others opinions but for me Hamas and the IRA have/had legitimate grievances with little opportunity to have them addressed by those with the power. The KKK were completely different in they had the power and abused it on those who were relatively helpless (more IDF than Hamas for my money) and McVeigh was just an unbalanced individual who probably needed psychiatric help.
Hamas' legitamacy is through the ballot box and by virtue of having a significant level of popular support.

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 07:00 PM
I was a bit surprised about an hour ago to find the SWJ discussion of Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera being posted almost moment by moment as we dialgoue herein.

That said, I have between business events (I still work for a living) found several Internet open to everyone sites that amplify this discussion.

Understand my premise is that we need to better fund and utilize Voice of America, especially at the current time into the NWFP of Pakistan and into Afghanistan as a part of what is loosely meant by the 100 year war, which to me means a propaganda war revolving around religious extremist terrorist Islamics vs. the rest of Islam and the rest of the world's all other faiths.

1. Here is the best discussion I can find for now on why VOA needs to be done better, all this of course building from the 9/11 Bipartisan Commission Report recommendation to build up and use more effectively Voice of America:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/WhisperofAmerica_2.pdf

2. Here are a series of stories on the open Internet related to Al Jazeera, but pay special attention to the one about Al Jazeera being blatantly rascist, as a response to it was erased [by someone who controls these Internet entries] as I started open and read it:

http://www.truveo.com/aljazeera-channel-is-an-example-of-racism-in-the/id/2460008808

3. One of many examples where Al Jazeera has developed information on film useful to our enemies, the Taliban and al Qaida, which Al Jazeera and this very liberal website [source is copied below of this article] have tried to deny. "Loose lips sink ships" still applies today. This story is dated in 2006:

http://www.internews.org/pubs/afghanistan/060212_jfr_09.shtm

Al-Jazeera TV reporter arrested by CFC-A:

According to Mohamad Sediq, administrator of Al-Jazeera TV network in Kabul, one Al-Jazeera reporter (Waliullah Shaheen), his cameraman (Saeed Naser) and their driver (Mohammad Agha) were arrested by the CFC-A (Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan) in Wazir Mohammad Akbar Khan while filming in the vicinity of Camp Eggers in Kabul. They were interrogated in cold weather under snow falling for almost an hour, their equipment was confiscated and the individuals were then taken to the 10th department of police in Kabul.

The Media Relation officer of the CFC-A, Lt. Mike Cody, told Media Watch: “Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan personnel reported to the scene saw evidence that security features had been filmed. As a result of the incident, CFC-A withdrew the credentials of the reporters involved.”

Ground rules for credentialed reporters specify that photography showing levels of security at military installations may not be published. Likewise, signs at the gate nearest to the incident warn, in three languages (English, Dari and Pashto) that photography is not allowed. He rejected the allegation of the Al-Jazeera TV production crew who said they were investigated in cold weather under snow falling for a long time. Mohammad Sediq denied having filmed prohibited areas and he added: “our reporters were 50 meters away from the signs saying “photography is not allowed.""

The 10th department of police released Waliullah Shaheen and his colleagues after four hours detention.

It is worth mentioning that their equipment was returned to them after one week, and their credentials (identification documents) have still not been returned to them.

4. Another 2008 Al Zazeera internet news site very unfriendly and many alleged facts being untrue as regards the US and her allies regarding the war on terrorism:

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F06E0D8B-BE98-445A-9752-8E7EA9DAD30F.htm

5. A December, 2007 Internet site story/allegation of a break between al Qaida and Al Jazeera. You had to first have Al Jazeera as the primary propaganda promotion system of al Qaida to then have had a break.

http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/107762

6. This is the sort of untrue junk, lies, we get from the NEW YORK TIMES. Story dateline is 2001. Here is what Public Law says about Voice of America and I ask you to note in particular #3 in it's three part charter:

"The VOA Charter (Public Law 94-350) requires that broadcasts (1) be accurate, objective, and comprehensive; (2) represent all segments of American society and present a balanced and comprehensive view of significant American thought and institutions; and (3) clearly present the policies of the United States."

For VOA Charter story see: http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_aboutus.cfm

For NEW YORK TIMES warped and misrepresented story about Voice of America from 2001 article see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DC1F3CF933A25753C1A9679C8B 63

In summary, the US needs a pro-active 100 years ideological war Voice of America in all releveant and related dialects and languges as laid out in the above charter. We cannot rely on surrogates who have ideological sharp differences of a religious nature which is what the entire ideological differences of a terrorist and extremist nature are all about.

Now, watch the Internet at large, look for a new posting very fast, separate and apart from the posting(s) I have created this one posting to break away from. Interesting?

George L. Singleton
04-10-2008, 11:20 PM
"I was a bit surprised about an hour ago to find the SWJ discussion of Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera being posted almost moment by moment as we dialgoue herein."

This should read (I make typing errors believe me!): I was a bit surprised abou an hour ago to find on the open Internet the SWJ discussion of Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera being posted almost moment by moment as we post same within SWJ dialogue among us, herein."

JJackson
04-10-2008, 11:44 PM
George I do not think you and I are going to square this circle. The links and examples you gave convinced me of nothing. One was of a Qatari rambling about racism, one was to an Al Jazeera page in Arabic I could not read. The liveleak link was to a Fitna video which I had seen before - and while I would defend the freedom to make and display this vile inflammatory racist filth - I regard it as being as odious as OBL’s more inflammatory broadcasts. In the extract in very large red type you choose to highlight clause 3 but I would go for clause 1 “be accurate, objective, and comprehensive” without that you are just going to be Lord Haw-Haw. The only link to anything which made any kind of sense was the NYT article; which was on the money.

George L. Singleton
04-11-2008, 12:54 AM
George I do not think you and I are going to square this circle. The links and examples you gave convinced me of nothing. One was of a Qatari rambling about racism, one was to an Al Jazeera page in Arabic I could not read. The liveleak link was to a Fitna video which I had seen before - and while I would defend the freedom to make and display this vile inflammatory racist filth - I regard it as being as odious as OBL’s more inflammatory broadcasts. In the extract in very large red type you choose to highlight clause 3 but I would go for clause 1 “be accurate, objective, and comprehensive” without that you are just going to be Lord Haw-Haw. The only link to anything which made any kind of sense was the NYT article; which was on the money.

You are clearly in left field, which is your "right."

Let's let you have your views while America marches forward to a better day in the long term propaganda war against terrorism, which gets no freedom of speech rights with suicide bombers and such.

Glad you liked the speech of the retired Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on why we need a better funded more heavily used VOA. Oh, did you overlook that one?

George L. Singleton
04-11-2008, 02:01 AM
See:

http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_board.cfm

This is the oversight and policy board of the Voice of America, which is a bipartisan group of very distinguished Americans.

The new chairman of the BBG is James K. Glassman, appointed June 7, 2007, who among many accomplishments is the former president of The Atlantic Monthly Co., publisher of The New Republic Magazine.

William F. Owen
04-11-2008, 06:43 AM
As to who are, and are not terrorist, you and I have been around this before and are not likely to change each others opinions but for me Hamas and the IRA have/had legitimate grievances with little opportunity to have them addressed by those with the power.

Not trying to change your opinion. I am merely presenting an opposing view point to prevent my people being unjustly slandered.

Hamas is anti-semitic organisation - thus unacceptable to me in any shape or form. They maybe elected, but Hitler died democratically elected. If the intent of the operation was to kidnap IDF soldiers, why attack Nahal Oz? if the real intent was kidnapping IDF soldiers, they would have found much easier targets else where.

The (Provsional) IRA were/are common criminals/drug dealers who were never the legitimate voice of the Catholics living in Ulster. - and also a tad anti-Semitic though I am sure you didn't know that.

Steve Blair
04-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Ok, folks. Let's all take some deep breaths and possibly a step or two back. This is an interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it get bogged down or sidetracked by personal attacks.

George L. Singleton
04-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Ok, folks. Let's all take some deep breaths and possibly a step or two back. This is an interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it get bogged down or sidetracked by personal attacks.

Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

Ron Humphrey
04-11-2008, 01:47 PM
Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

This may be an example of why you don't see the amount of concern you might like in how quickly or effectively the VOA arm of government policy is being pushed out. It's not that it doesn't represent a very important part of overall foriegn policy but rather the fact that it is no longer the only game in town for such information dissemination.

The internet has brought forth as you point out an amazing capability of providing direct feedback worldwide within less time than it takes to write this post. This means that although there may not be a laptop in every house there is someone almost anywhere who does have access.

Consider this the opportunity to put forth reasoned and well supported discourse in relation to what VOA has to offer and let it make it's case through standing up against it's competitors. Al Gezeera and others are in their own way representative of the areas they are covering. They tend to hire those who come to them volunteering and as such there will inevitably be somewhat biased reports which come out. But they are at least competing with other media not trying to silence them. So all in all things could be worse.

Also consider that many publications both here and abroad have some of the same problems and thus we find stories coming out which end up being fraudulent and have to be retracted. Again ,could be worse. Finally regardless what happens VOA should be anywhere we can get it simply because it's sole purpose is to give voice to our policies and to help avoid mis characterizations by others. Let's be honest though in understanding that few are going to be listening if locally they are not being made aware of it. So real involvement with the population is required in order to build awareness.

Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

For me I ask three main questions

1- Can it help
2- Might it hurt
3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.

Steve Blair
04-11-2008, 02:00 PM
Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

This isn't very hard to do, especially on any sort of non-AKO/CAC web network (which uses additional external levels of member authentication). On message boards there are any number of "lurkers"...folks who register and then read the posts without necessarily commenting. Think of them as browsers at the local newsstand. They're getting information they are interested in or need, but don't always feel qualified or able to contribute (or can't in some cases). It may be a lurker (or lurkers) who are reposting information elsewhere, or it could be a contributing (as in posting) member. Hard to say.

There are some boards that have additional member forums that add a second level of authentication (in other words a sub-forum with a separate password/login) for close hold information (or sensitive or focused topics). These usually have a specific moderator assigned to screen membership requests (or are joined by invitation only), so lurkers aren't possible. Such sub-forums require a fair amount of work, and even then they can be hacked by someone with enough skill, time and/or interest to do so.

George L. Singleton
04-11-2008, 02:29 PM
This is a truncated quote from Ron Humphrey to save space.

Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

For me I ask three main questions

1- Can it help
2- Might it hurt
3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.

Thanks for a very fair minded overview.

1. Voice of America helped us win the Cold War, and before that WW II.
Remember, not sure of your age, Edward R. Murrow who once headed the Voice of America?

2. The 9/11 BipartisanCommission dated July 2004 recommends that Voice of America, which comes under the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors, a bi-partisan grouping of distinguished Americans including whoever The Secretary of State is at the time) be expanded, funded better and have additional languages and more linguists [in today's most relevant languages, which now includes Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi, later two regarding Pakistan, first regarding both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Farsi of course as it relates primarily to Iran, but at a third level behind Pashto and Dari as relates to Afghanistan.]

see http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_aboutus.cfm

and note this short extract from the 9/11 made public July 2004 Report & Recommendations:

BEGIN QUOTE: Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney END 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT 7 RECOMMENDATIONS QUOTE

3. The long term ideological war clearly began on 9/11 by the Islamic terrorists, who have benefitted as already documented herein from the services of Al Jazeera. It is important to recognize that Al Jazeera is not a for profit outfit but is funded by a single shiek out of the UAE, who is a long term oligarch [he overthrew his father before him while Dad was on vacation in Europe].

Again, thank you for keeping a broadbased, more opinion writers who belong to SWJ hopefully will focus as both soldiers and citizens on the long term propaganda war that came upon us, we did not go looking for it.

I repeat that the record, in my view, has shown Al Jazeera to be the advocate of terrorism and extremism in the guise of an all news and public affairs system which is owned and funded by one UAE Shiek, it is neither a non-profit as we understand same nor is it a for profit affair.

Voice of America is mandated as follows, and is of course taxpayer funded:

VOA CHARTER

To protect the integrity of VOA programming and define the organization's mission, the VOA Charter was drafted in 1960 and later signed into law on July 12, 1976, by President Gerald Ford. It reads:

The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

Thanks.

JJackson
04-11-2008, 03:35 PM
George I had not read the Minow’s piece but now have. Despite not being predisposed to be a big fan of anyone who thinks this
Whatever Don Rumsfeld says he needs should be provided by the Congress with pride in the extraordinary service his imaginative leadership is giving our country. I have to admit he made several excellent points.

Was it to be a professional, impartial news service serving as an example of press freedom to the world? Was it to be an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, a strategic weapon to be employed against those we fight? What is the line between news and propaganda? Should our broadcasts advocate America’s values or should they provide neutral, objective journalism? That debate has never been resolved,
He points out that at its inception the aim was to get accurate factual news into areas that could not get anything but state propaganda (due to cencorship & jamming). This is far less the case now, the people I suspect you wish to reach are Muslims with access to Al Jazeera and many other news sources the problem is that they have a choice as to what they watch/listen to and they are not choosing stations broadcasting what you want them to hear – or are hearing but not buying. Now there is so much choice people’s view of the world is not based on what they were force fed by the state but what they were fed by their family, community or just through personal choice. This is causing – and will continue to cause – a new state of play where society is self radicalising. Gone are the days of a few national radio and TV stations to get your news from. I can spend all day reading ‘news’ tailored to and reinforcing the most appalling prejudices with other likeminded bigots. It really does not matter what my particular flavour of extremism is there are Neo-fascists, rabid Stalinists, Muslim extremists and Zionist extremists all getting a version of fact and reality that would not even consider that the other side might have a point.
Which brings us back to Minow’s unresolved question is the aim of the VoA to be a propaganda tool - in which case I would argue no one you are trying to reach will listen to it - or is it a news organisation giving the unvarnished truth (what ever that is) in which case why should it get tax payer funding. Minow rightly lists a catalogue of states and individuals who have had a problem with Al Jazeera but that seems to be because it is not a propaganda organ for anyone and is factually reporting in an area where the ruling elites would be much happier with a return to complete control of the news. The US’s primary beef seems to be that it did not censor, but aired, Bin Laden tapes it had been sent. I find this hard to understand as Minow repeatedly talks about the VoA’s aims being to spread the message of ‘Democracy & Freedom’. While I have no problem with democracy which, as William points out, can return any kind of government Freedom cause me some problems as I am still not clear what it encompasses. In any American context I assume it includes freedom from censorship which seems at odds with criticisms of airing Bin Laden. If Bin Laden does not have a point then we should want as many people as possible to see him try and justify himself, and fail. Lies should be brought into the open and countered not just hidden. One underlying assumption of much of his argument is that ‘it is because they do not understand our values they do not like us’ and all we need to overcome this is a really good PR firm. I think you need to consider they might understand American values but want no part of them.
I was interested that you thought I was left wing; I have had that before on here – and on some other American-centric sites – but had never considered my self to be of the left or right. In the grand spectrum of political thought I suppose I would be to the Left of the American mainstream, fairly middle of the road in Europe and globally to the right of centre.

George L. Singleton
04-11-2008, 04:38 PM
I think if any reader of the SWJ postings reads the entire Newton Minnor Voice of America [in support of more and better] article by Newton Minnow former Chairman of the FCC under President Kennedy, as found at:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/WhisperofAmerica_2.pdf

they will by reading it in total context find a different picture than your extracts indicate. However, standing by themselves, alone, out of context, your wording as copied from Newt's article is well done.

Newton Minnow's mentioning of the then (now deceased) Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Biden being essentially on the same page in support of expanded Voice of America broadcasting as now more necessary than ever before in history as the ideological war, propaganda war to me, since and started by 9/11, they both agree, is for using my own language "a hundred years of more" to come and we have to use our technology and communications and public relations skills to be our own systems advocate, as they both say and agree.

Cheers

George L. Singleton
04-12-2008, 03:32 AM
Ken,

While I completely agree our ME policy has been proked up for some time, let's be real. Number one please define the term "Arabist". Do you mean someone targeted toward ME policy? Or someone who speaks Arabic? Or someone who sympathizes with "Arabs," as usually defined by someone who does not?

Second, when has academia been in charge of ME policy? And when have we depended on academia to set said policy?

As for "Arabists" in government keeping us out of trouble, there are similar problems with that thesis. You yourself have said good luck changing the poilticians on current policy regarding US-Israeli relations. I would advise you that one might expect similar luck in changing political policy toward the Saudis, especially with a Republican Administration. The point being that "Arabists" or "Africanists" influence policy within boundaries set by politicians. If they screw it up, they certainly got help in doing so.

Best
Tom

Tom:

First, no quotes please as this note above ended with:

__________________

Quote:
History... is-a made at night! Character... is what you are in the dark! We must WORK, while the clock, she's-a ticking!
Dr. Emilio Lizardo, My Minter and Roal Moddle

Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.

The tornades here seem to be done, at least for now. Power back on for 34,000 of us in our immediate area now. Hence getting back on the Internet, although briefly.

Remember, no quotes and have a good weekend,
George (USAF, Ret.)

George L. Singleton
04-12-2008, 03:51 AM
http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369&highlight=Voice+America

IF this link works it takes you to a Sept. 2006 discussion among Pakhtuns inside Pakistan about forthcoming Voice of America TV and related programming which they are looking forward to.

It may not be clear but the article link I posted a few days ago, the article about me in the April 2008 issue of OFFICER MAGAZINE involves MOAA, the Military Officers Association of America, the fourth largest veterans organization/lobby in the US, largest of all officer veterans organization, is helping focus the need to complete implementing the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations to increase funding for and programming/languages beyond Arabic [my pet interest] to fight the long term ideological war against terrorists and terrorism worldwide.

We, and some others in MOAA, think that the focus right now is a combination of Iraq, of course, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

House and Senate appropriations committee hearings on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which is the policy end of Voice of America, are ongoing these days in DC. I am for, obviously more funding and expanded number and types of linguists. You who are opposed have every right to lobby the Congress against while we "for guys and gals" lobby the Congress for more funding and linguists.

The many young Marines, Army troops, Navy (especially SEALS), Air Force and Coast Guard I know direcly and am in contact with are pretty unamiously FOR a better PSYOPS, ie, VOA program, as it helps them help the people where they are now fighting the enemy, who are largely boasted about and of in and by Al Jazeera, which in my view ain't no mom and pop we have a different point of view outfit, it is aimed at our destruction in it's foreign affairsrs reporting and still unique/sole access to Taliban and al Qaida leadership.

JJackson
04-12-2008, 01:31 PM
George I do not want to hi-jack David's Afghan thread but parts of your post bought up a VoA related question.


Saudi Wahabbi terrorist version of Islam are funding the madrassahs, the syllibus, and in some cases both the teachers in madrassahs and some of the al Qaida fighters and trainers of Taliban and al Qaida fighters.

&

... except that in Afghanistan Christian missionaries are against the law, even under President Karzai. Go figure that one.

As I understand it a major part of the role of the VoA were to "(3) clearly present the policies of the United States." and spread "Freedom & Democracy" how do you envisage that working in somewhere like Saudi where the US foreign policy interests lead to deafening silence for behaviour which - had it occured in Iran - would probably lead to sanctions. Do you envisage VoA ships blasting calls for democracy, civil rights and evangelical Christian TV through Saudi Jamming?

Tom Odom
04-12-2008, 01:42 PM
Tom:

Secondly, we are dealing in a multi-racial, not all Arab culture and climate in the war on terror. A few examples:

1. Pakistanis in the main are not Arabs.
2. Many Afghans also are not Arabs.
3. Iranians in the main absolutely are not Arabs.

We are also dealing in a clash of Muslim cultures, let alone Muslims vs. the rest of the world so to speak.
a. Sunnis and Shia break down into many subsets.
b. An example of a good and effective, moderate Shia subsect are the followers of the Agha Khan, among whose followers I have friends here in the US and back in Pakistan.
c. In a broad sense democracy is not friend of either radical Islam nor in many cases of undemocratic but more moderate Islamic nation states of broader Islam, as the haves will loose out under a democracy in most cases.


George,

As a former Middle East FAO I am well aware of the complexity of the Middle East, George. I have served in Turkey, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel. I served in Gulf War one as the current intel guy for the Army Staff on the Middle East. I lost two friends in Lebanon--one blown up by an IED and another taken hostage and murdered. Don't presume to give me a regional overview based on your time in south Asia.

My comment above was in regard to the term Arabist and how it was laid out and frankly had not a tinkers damn to do with your response.

You have a nice weekend too

Tom US Army Retired

George L. Singleton
04-12-2008, 03:54 PM
Tom:

I am always glad to know the background of e-mail website correspondents and article writers.

My time, through and including the Gulf War (I) included and also included years earlier time in: Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, and Crete. These references took me down to retirement from Reserve in mid-1990s. This is now "dated" experience.

I was wounded in the Rann of Kutch between India and Pakistan in January, 1965, but another story for another day perhaps.

My US Embassy tour while dated, 1963-1965, still keeps me in touch via e-mail with such Pakistani legends as retired Air Chief Marshal Ashgar Khan, who was first head of the Pakistani Air Force, as of today in 2008. He is much older than me, in his 80s, of course. I was the Liaison Officer for our old U-2 and Intel Comm base at Badabar, which is suburban Peshawar.

As a US Civil Service career budget officer with the USPHS and VA, I was able to engineer leave and military leave, minus weekends not counted on short active duty Orders on TDY tours as a reservist to do work for and with old US Readiness Command, which became USSOCOM per the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the late Bill Nichols have been a close personal friend from down here.

Also had the pleasure and opportunity to do short active duty tours during my post active duty reserve life (after the 6 years regular USAF active duty) with FORSCOM, CINCLANT (w/Admiral Kelso, who didn't do it), and other "outfits." NOTE: I was in the paper only Inactive Reserve from late 1967 to Nov. 1971, while recuperating from back/spinal injuries from the Jan. 1965 wounding, where we were "blown up" in a PIA Land Rover in Pakistan, etc, etc.

Volunteered back on active duty the end of 1990 to help run the Desert Storm Airlift as a reserve 06. Worked out of both Charleston and Saudi.

In between all this active and reserve times I spent a few years as an Internaitonal Banking Officer in NYC, covering SW Asia, among other desk assignments as a traveling loan officer.

SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.

Peace toward victory of our ideology of democracy over terrorist tyranny is our common goal.

By the way, you are better read than I am in current tense books about our world situation and war on terrorism. The last book I read, over a year ago, on these topics was THE OSAMA BIN LADEN I KNEW by Peter Bergen. That is because I have been inundated with e-mails from Muslims overseas, as well as here in the US; being invited to write on several Muslim and specificlaly Pakhtun websites, including at two different Pakistani Universities, and other such stuff that eats up one's time when you are also working full time, putting three late in life children through two college degrees each, and doing the normal stuff of a married life. Have now published over 200 letters to Muslim editors and articles (fewer in number by far) in some of same Islamic overseas press.

In the middle of these things over my lifetime I was happy to have made time to co-found and be an early unpaid State Director of the Chuck Colson Prison Ministry for all Alabama and to be for six years on the Alabama Department of Youth Services Board and concurrent Board of Education. I have shared some of the DYS (junvenile jails) experiences with some in Pakistan who are struggling with their slant on juvenile crime seeking constructive ways and means today over there to reform criminal minded and dangerous youth there.

Any comments off line on the LSU and Alabama (my alma mater) football prospects for 2008?

Cheers,
George

Tom Odom
04-12-2008, 08:04 PM
SUMMARY: In no way do I ever intend knowingly to demean or be rude to anyone's comments unless they are first openly rude to me. I only mean to share how they come across to me, since we until now, knew next to nothing about each other's implied meaning(s).

I am glad to know of your expertese, but my comments differentiating Arabs from non-Arabs were hopefully read by others who didn't know or don't know the difference until now of you intended or implied meaning and could have as easily misunderstood your writing, and mine, for that matter.

George,

Let me make this clear. If you take my comments on something else and then launch into a lecture on a subject I have spent most of my professional life on, you are being rude because you have not bothered to acertain first what I said and second who I am. My comment on "Arabists" was related to another post and in no way implied that Afghans are Arabs or anything close to the subject. As for my own experience, I am still involved in this fight and by they way I teach cultural affairs to Soldiers as part of it.

As a moderator on here, let me suggest that you read what is written befoire you respond to it and don't use another's post to launch off on a tangent. I try and avoid implied meanings in a forum like this one simply because they do get misinterpreted.

Now I suggest that we cease this exchange.

Tom

George L. Singleton
04-13-2008, 04:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/business/media/28anchor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

You guys may want to read this article. Two things in particular are noted:

1. Too much censorhsip being exerted from Doha on all Al Jazeera broadcasters.

2. Sense of growing anti-Americanism on Al Jazeera.

Tom, on your latest note I will answer you off line via e-mail.

George

JJackson
04-13-2008, 03:07 PM
George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.

What I got had a Mr Marash whose 2 year contract had expired and was leaving. Censorship did not appear anywhere in the article. Mr. Marash was not exactly a disgruntled whistleblower with quotes like these.



Mr. Marash called his time at Al Jazeera English “very, very satisfying” and praised the channel’s coverage of Latin America, Africa and other regions, but said that the editorial direction had shifted during his time there.

&

“To put it bluntly, the channel that’s on now — while excellent, and I plan to be a lifetime viewer — is not the channel that I signed up to do,”

He left basically because of a shift in the power balance of editorial control from the bureaus in the US, UK and Malaysia back to base in Qatar. Is that censorship? Are there people moving around in every news organisation because they did not get the level of autonomy they hoped for, or were promised?

Al Jazeera has problems both with staff – although mainly with disgruntled Arab staff who are envious of the packages offered to lure in the ex-pats like Mr. Marash. It has a bigger problem and it is – wait for it – censorship. Qatar is the hold out against censorship it is the rest of the GCC – lead by the Saudi’s - who want to curtail the activities of Al Jazeera and not in the English edition. Their concern is with their own citizen being subverted by ideas over which they have no control - horrors like a free press and Democracy. There are ligitamate fears for Al Jazeera's editorial independance as raised in this article from last December Concerns over Al Jazeera's Saudi coverage (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/506311-al-jazeera-to-cover-haj-pilgrimage?ln=en) and for a more general overview of ME media freedoms try Between repression and servility (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=741) .

George L. Singleton
04-13-2008, 03:22 PM
George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.

What I got had a Mr Marash whose 2 year contract had expired and was leaving. Censorship did not appear anywhere in the article. Mr. Marash was not exactly a disgruntled whistleblower with quotes like these.

He left basically because of a shift in the power balance of editorial control from the bureaus in the US, UK and Malaysia back to base in Qatar. Is that censorship? Are there people moving around in every news organisation because they did not get the level of autonomy they hoped for, or were promised?

Al Jazeera has problems both with staff – although mainly with disgruntled Arab staff who are envious of the packages offered to lure in the ex-pats like Mr. Marash. It has a bigger problem and it is – wait for it – censorship. Qatar is the hold out against censorship it is the rest of the GCC – lead by the Saudi’s - who want to curtail the activities of Al Jazeera and not in the English edition. Their concern is with their own citizen being subverted by ideas over which they have no control - horrors like a free press and Democracy. There are ligitamate fears for Al Jazeera's editorial independance as raised in this article from last December Concerns over Al Jazeera's Saudi coverage (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/506311-al-jazeera-to-cover-haj-pilgrimage?ln=en) and for a more general overview of ME media freedoms try Between repression and servility (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=741) .
I am sorry you did not thoroughly read the entire article. Your remarks are selective and were in the article.

I encourage readers of this site to read the entire article and not defer to selective comments I am replying to.

True, I was and am selective but the difference is the reason ABC fellow resigned is too much, increasing censoring of Al Jazeera journalists, ie, him and others, over a dozen Western journalists in fact are cited as having resigned, too.

Anti-American growing tone of Al Jazeera per se is also clearly a stand alone paragraph in the article.

Your can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time old sport.

JJackson
04-13-2008, 04:58 PM
Your can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time old sport.

I freely admit I deliberatly picked two quotes from the article to contradict your two points and 'spun' it in a different direction but at least they were from the article. As I said before there is no mention of censorship anywhere in the article had I been trying to make your point for you I could have picked
He said he also sensed an anti-American sensibility creeping into the coverage. Will Stebbins, the channel’s Washington bureau chief, told The Associated Press Thursday that it seeks to evaluate United States policy rigorously but “give everyone a fair shout.”

But which ever way you cut it I find it very difficult to accept that Al Jazeera is - all in all - a bad thing. If you look at the media that is accessible, and accessed by, the Arab populations of the Middle East which ones score highly for editorial independence? If anyone would like to argue that Al Jazeera is not the most independent and pro-western news source in the area please do so - with one proviso - they must actually be watched or listened to by a reasonable number of people. George if you want a free and fair press in this area stop pushing yet another government sponsored propaganda broadcaster and start lobbying your government to apply pressure on the States in the area to allow a free press – or at a minimum to stop trying to censor Al Jazeera.
If you got your wish for a VoA propaganda network I am wondering who do you think it will attract, perhaps the same people that were going to throw flowers in front of the tanks as they entered Baghdad?
I am not anti-American but I am very anti wishy-washy thinking and put much of American foreign policy in that category along with – regretfully – your VoA plans.
Explain what you think VoA output is going to be like (unbiased journalism, unbiased journalism after it has been through a DoS spin wash or raw propaganda). Then explain how you are going to get an audience whose hearts and minds you can win given anything called ‘Voice of America’ is going to treated with great suspicion by your target audience and the moment they detect any kind of pro-American bias you will never see them again (also bear in mind if you can not convince me you will never convince someone who already thinks the US is the Great Satan). Show me this and I will convert to the cause.

George L. Singleton
04-14-2008, 12:09 AM
I had almost completed an e-mail to you when one of our daughters, an overseas missionary, called me long distnce, and while I talked with her my computer shut down!

Just as well, so now my reply will be quicker, as my wife is starting dinner and I am hungary.

First, take time to read this Hujra Online/KhyberWatch dialogue between their chief Moderator, Khan Baba and some younger Pakhtuns in both Pakistan and Afghantistan related to Voice of America from 2006 time frame, see what they think and say about Voice of America:

http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...=Voice+America

1. Voice of America today operates under the BBG, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is not either the State nor the Defense Department.

2. Here is some link info on the BBG/VOA:

http://www.bbg.gov/

You can open several menus inside the overall BBG link and read and learn from it.

3. Plans per se are not ridid nor inflexible, for if they were, whatever enterprise, be it commercial, government, or...BBG/Voice of America, will fail due to rigidity and inflexibility. Plans are only a guide against paramaters, which, too, change or must sometimes be changed of necessity of the moment.

4. I have worked my butt off since 9/11 writing overseas into the Muslim world to share our views and to learn from theirs. It has been overall a good experience but one fraught with danger for all those who e-mail talked with me on open websites, so many have initiated contacts with me from my e-mail address printed at the end of all letters I have published in both the Peshawar FRONTIER POST and Karachi DAWN. Due to the open nature of even this SWJ website I limit what is say in this regard. Many, many of the now direct e-mail correspondents in the NWSP and Afghanistan are under recurring religious attacks, some being Shia attacked and killed off by Sunnis, but some Sunnis who are moderate are also under attack by radical Sunnis, the Taliban and al Qaida. It is tough for them!

5. I have tried very hard to have discussions of comparative religions and cultures. This theme is the sort of thing "I" want VOA to key on and around.

6. Several Muslim websites,have contacted me directly and invited me to write on their site(s). Here is a link to Pukhtun Women website dealing in comparative religions, from Christmas, 2006 time frame. I was contacte directly by this site's female Moderator and asked to write for them, which this is but one example of:

http://pukhtunwomen.org/node/117

7. To cut it short, Al Jazeera has from it's inception a religious motive and bias which is not found in the VOA. This bias has allowed Al Jazeera to be in touch with since 9/11 Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida, and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as now the al Qaida inside Iraq, for they are clearly there now in Iraq.

CONCULSION: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (VOA) is having budget hearings currently before the US House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Our veterans lobby, the Military Officers Association of America, of which I am a state level and city level director here in Alabama, is the fourth largest among all veterans lobbies in the US and the largest among officer veterans group lobbies in the US. The Military Officers Association of America, in it's OFFICER MAGAZINE, April 2008 issue, on page 28 has done an article about me and my efforts since 9/11 writing overseas media. My focus currently is on the BBG/Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera, hence it is now MOAAs article's focus, too. I am seeking improved the funding and linguistic broadcasts, particulary on TV, but secondarily on radio, to the masses in Pakistan, including the NWFP and FATA, to Afghanistan, to Iran, and into Iraq, as well as into the "Stans" of the old USSR which are also majority Muslim. VOA has other broadcast terrirtory to worry about, but these are my determined areas of interest right now.

Al Jazeera thus far has been beating us (VOA) to the punch as the propaganda war army for and of al Qaida and the Taliban as they report both from SW Asia and of events in Europe and the US. Many writers on this SWJ site which you can look up by searcing "Voice of America" agree that Al Jazeera in it's current form is not for profit; is owned by a Doha oil wealthy Sultan, who is incresing his censorship grip over Al Jazeera, etc.

You have the BBC as a model. Our VOA needs, my view, to be more proactive. VOA is outside the realm of the military, be sure you undersand that point. But our military benfits whenever an unvarnished presentaiton of the policies and goals of the US are presented on a recurring basis.

I want VOA to go more into cultural similiarities and religious topics on TV, more than on radio, but also on radio.

46 million out of 166 million total Pakistan population are illiterate.

71% or 26.3 million out of approximately 37 million Afghans are illiterate.

VOA needs to first and foremost focused on broadcasting to the illiterates, despite others views, this is my opinion.

Enough for now. Read these few links and if you will go back and open all previous links I posted over past 5 days and read them, too. Many are self explanatory. Understand the linke you did not like came to me from a Muslim inside Dubai recently. I learned a great deal from it that I would not otherwise not of have known about.

So you understand, am example of a young 20s or 30s educated Pakistani via UK parents engineer writing to me from the UAE starts out by attacking our Holy Bible and slandering our Holy Trinity. This is an educated, technically, UK degreed engineer. This is what we have to get through to on the upper end, at the lower end, the illitrate millions, whom I refered to , who in the main aren't even Arabs ethnically speaking, are frankly easier to talk to and with. Not that I am able to e-mail chat with illiterates, but that is my perception and view.

These are tough times and there are no singular simple answers.

Remember that PSYOPS and pubicl relations by VOA are not to be confused with "spin" as some seem to think.

George Singleton

George L. Singleton
04-19-2008, 09:56 AM
Thank you for your detailed analysis of Republican US Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma views on the future of the Voice of America.

Senator Coburn was a supporter of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid for the presidential nominaiton, where here in my state I was a candidate to have been, past tense, a Thompson pledged delegate to the Republican National Convention this Sept.

While I disagree with and hated to see two term US Senator Bill Frist leave the Senate recently, he, like Coburn, like Thompson, advocated and practiced self imposed term limits.

I disagree with the term limits ideology as it thins out what I most want in Congress, depth of experience and committee senority.

Back to Voice of America.

Along with your good review of Senator Tom Coburn's views and suggestions on how to improve the operation(s) of Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors there is another track or set of ideas on how to improve the media image and process during our war on terror in a Feb. 2008 article in the SMALL WARS JOURNAL, which I cite and quote in part here:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/02/changing-the-organizational-cu-1/

"The enemy video tapes operations and then distorts and twists the information and images to misinform the world. What if we had documented video footage of the same operations which refuted what our enemies say? By the way, that is not enough, we have to get our images out FIRST! The first images broadcast become reality to viewers. If we wait until we see the enemy’s images, we are being reactive and we have already squandered the opportunity.

Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned."

For further discussion here is where I come from on Voice of America:

1. It is easy to find fault with anybody or anything in life.

2. Constructive criticism, which Senator Tom Coburn offers, per your good posting, is good and helpful.

3. However, I am unsure that just as on this site many readers and responders within the US seem less familiar with PSYOPS and public relations vs. spin. Others on this site seem upset by OPSEC constraints which I for one generally agree with in war time.

4. This said, to me the war on terrorism is an ideological, long term, 100 years or more war where a radicalized version of Islam is being pushed on the rest of Islam and the rest of the entire world right now. This is a propaganda war, which is the long term war we have to fight and win.

5. Current military operations and suggestions such as Lt. General Caldwell make above (as noted) are battlefield point in time suggestions which should not be confused with policy making. In fact I think Lt. General Caldwell is asking for sheer disaster in his suggestions of his third point involving use of on the battleground soldiers to be "photo journalist" whose job and purpose is to fight, not be cinematographers.

6. Policy making is done by those elected to make public policy at the Presidential level, with the advice and consent where appropriate of the US Senate along with appropriate House oversight.

7. There always has been and will always be a need for secrecy in matters of national security. Do you see Al Qaida or the Taliban handing out outlines weekly to the media on what their next military moves will be?

Another comment: I have in the past 24 hours found an overseas website which has members both in the NWFP/FATA/Afghanistan/as well as Islamic members in Canada reading and commenting on their webiste about SWJ discussions from last weekend on this site. All people on the Islamic site (KhyberWatch/Hujra Online) are not our enemies, but some definitely are. A fyi item to think about when writing on this SWJ site in a time of war.

George L. Singleton
04-20-2008, 01:15 PM
http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/terrorist-vs-rebel-who-decides-and-why.html

The above is not an official site of the Voice of America, but is basically a blog site for views and opinions about and on VOA and related topics. Some, but not all, of the comments on this blog (few are visible) are of the character of: "A neighbor's son's friend who served in Iraq told me, so it must be so."

A background writer on Smith-Mundt has his own site, listing his long term acquired international law credentials (he comments in articles on various blogs about Smith-Mundt) found at:

http://new.stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/faculty/profiles/Borgen

Finally, an article by Mr. Borgen giving his overview and opinions of Smith-Mundt is found at:

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1196450664.shtml


These sites are found from Mountain Runner's posting "When history repeats itself" dealing with those aspects of the Voice of America as governed under Smith-Mundt which prohibits VOA broadcasts overseas to international audiences being broadcast back into the US, translated back into English.

Smith-Mundt and the Battle for Hearts and Minds
by Chris Borgen

Matt Armstrong, who blogs at MountainRunner, has a thought-provoking guest-post over at Small Wars Journal on the Smith-Mundt Act, which is commonly understood as having intended to prevent blowback of propaganda intended for foreign audiences back into the U.S. Here’s an example from the act concerning the Voice of America (VOA). Section 501(a) of the Act provides that nformation produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.

I in part replied to some of Matt Armstrong's earlier last week comments, which are edifying to me for one, on more detailed history of Voice of America's historic operating legislative governance or guidance under law.

I do wonder what double standards Al Jazeera may be using since 9/11, as the Internet general references every few years, now just in the last less than 12 months, keep noting that Al Jazeera is reinventing itself.

VOA being publicly funded with a long history out there for all to see at:

http://www.voanews.com/english/about/VOAHistory.cfm

VOA a 9/11 Commission Report list of recommendations to pursue which involves more and better funding and I throw in, again, my two cents, use of more specific language broadcasts which I for one prefer be on TV into Afghanistan, Iran, Paksitan, to include the NWFP and FATA in particular.

If Matt Armstrongand others have been concerned at Smith-Mundt interpretations, use of more TV Voice of America broadcasts should just "step over" those issues as TV broacasts can in general be picked up from satellites and viewed simultaneously anywhere in the world, simultaneous to the TV broadcasts in native languages/dialects intended and the primary receipients of same.

Mountain Runner is much better than I am at formatting his postings here and merely clicking on several of his key words gets you most of the above Internet references I have decided to spell out in hopes of getting less interested readers on this top in SWJ to consider looking at the good background researched sites made possible not by me but by Mountain Runner, Matt Armstrong. Thanks, Matt, for your hard work and good research.

Spud
04-21-2008, 03:47 AM
George please check your HTML link but the NYT article you linked to was concerning Al Jazeera but not – given what you wrote – the same article.

wary of dipping my toes into this thread for some reason :confused:

Anyway ... the NYT article is a cut from a quite a detailed interview in the latest Columbia Journalism Review

Probably a better a source document for this discussion


In February 2006, David Marash, a veteran correspondent (and substitute host) for ABC’s Nightline, raised eyebrows in the U.S. journalism world when he took a job as the Washington anchor for Al Jazeera English, the new sister channel of the Arabic-language news operation in Qatar. For American viewers, Marash brought instant credibility to the new channel. Eyebrows rose again last week when Marash announced that he was quitting Al Jazeera English because of what he considered anti-American bias in the channel’s coverage. CJR’s Brent Cunningham spoke with Marash yesterday.



http://www.cjr.org/the_water_cooler/dave_marash_why_i_quit.php?page=all

George L. Singleton
04-21-2008, 11:19 AM
Thanks to our friend from down under for commenting.

George L. Singleton
04-26-2008, 06:23 PM
wary of dipping my toes into this thread for some reason :confused:

Anyway ... the NYT article is a cut from a quite a detailed interview in the latest Columbia Journalism Review

Probably a better a source document for this discussion



http://www.cjr.org/the_water_cooler/dave_marash_why_i_quit.php?page=all

You may want to look at today's Peshawar FRONTIER POST letters column for a radical Muslim's attack on the effectiveness of an interview in Pashto in the NWFP by a Voice of America inside Pakistan radio correspondent.

See: http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=le&nid=361

Separately, I asked the first of only three questions of Senator McCain when here for a rally this past Monday, again on Voice of America. His answer was very postive and thorough and lasted over 10 minutes! Good stuff all around.

George L. Singleton
04-26-2008, 11:25 PM
Today is:
Saturday, April 26, 2008, Rabi-us-Sani 19, 1429 A.H.

For Brig (Ret) Mehmood Shah
Muhammad Fahim Timergara, Dir faheemdir@yahoo.com

While talking to Dewa Radio (Pakhto Program) of the VOA. on the evening of April 23, 2008, the learned Shah Sahib completely denied the promulgation of Sharia law in the tribal agencies of Pakistan. The plea taken was that no basic preparations for the impositon of the Divine law has been done in the country and as such it is impossible to promulgate it. It is recalled that while debating the FCR law of the Frontier Region' most of the tribesmen have voiced for Sharia in case the notorious law of the colonial era is abolished. The tribal people are real muslims and they will never agree to any other system short of Islam. I am sure that a man of the status of Shah Sahib shoud not be unaware of the huge research and juristic work that has been accompished during the past four decades. The huge almirahs of the Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan are heaped with valuable documents of their findings almost on all aspects of life. It only needs a will of those at the helm of the affairs and influencials like Shah Sahib. Mind that billions have been spent on this proposition. We are committed to our pledge with Almighty Allah that we made at the time of our struggle for independence. We are committed to the sacred blood of our sisters, mothers, daughters and brethern that was shed only for 'Pakistan Ka Matlab Kiya La Ilaha lLLallah'. We are committed to the words of the Quide and the dreams of the Ideologue of the country. The unfortunate thing is that the foreign media particulary the radio channels run by the VOA for brainwashing of Pakistanis are determined to host only the secular element for their progammes and give few chances to the asecular ones. The main cause of national suffering is that we have forgotten our goal and aim of building a Pakistan in accordance with the wishes of its founder Father. I must remind Mehmood Shah Sahib and others who have similar views that they should give a second thought to their presumption of Sharia as not applicable. We should understand that Sharia is the Divine law can equally work in the collective life as it is in the case of individual. It is time that we repent and revert to God lest another tragedy (God forbid) of the then East Pakistan befalls on us. Time is running past.